You can rest whatever you want. The Census Bureau collects more than just population data. The very front page will share that it gathers all manner of data. The source cites the Census Bureau. You declare they couldn't have had the data and provide no proof for this claim.

You have misread the article and declare (wrongly) that the article assigns the total number of households to boomer households. It does not do this. Instead it states the following...

The priorities of our Boomer-led society are clearly born out in the above figures.

Boomer led... not boomer exclusive. So again, the entire spamming (for the third time after being posted twice and deleted once and reposted again) rant about the article getting the number of households wrong. Turns out it is right.

Yeah Jimmac, hate to break it to you but calling it flamebait, claiming that you can't blame just one generation or else it is a dodge, and finally saying Bush lost, get over it, are not counter-arguments.

They aren't arguments of any sort. They are distractions.

I hate to remind you but that was just the initial reaction. You've gotten plenty of counter arguments since and you know it!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

You can rest whatever you want. The Census Bureau collects more than just population data. The very front page will share that it gathers all manner of data. The source cites the Census Bureau. You declare they couldn't have had the data and provide no proof for this claim.

You have misread the article and declare (wrongly) that the article assigns the total number of households to boomer households. It does not do this. Instead it states the following...

The priorities of our Boomer-led society are clearly born out in the above figures.

Boomer led... not boomer exclusive. So again, the entire spamming (for the third time after being posted twice and deleted once and reposted again) rant about the article getting the number of households wrong. Turns out it is right.

So please do get some rest. I think you need it.

We already know there are more Boomer households and people. How does that support you argument?

Trumptman your world would be very different without us. A lot of the things I'm sure you take for granted we started. Trying to hang us for the situation Bush brought us is just pathetic. Smoke amd mirrors. Blaming anyone but the one in charge. Can't you find a new M.O.?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I hate to remind you but that was just the initial reaction. You've gotten plenty of counter arguments since and you know it!

That was your intial post. Frank noted the article didn't have the word boomer.

Artman called it a good rant.

Addabox claimed you can't really define a generation and that it was just prejudice.

Then you and Art had a side conversation about Boomers and dumb versus smart Boomers and if the tail end is really boomers.

Etc...etc...

Eventually you settled into some strange bit or reasoning that I am trying to really take the last 8 years and blame it on a generation. There wasn't any proof of this and again none of my links mention Bush, try to justify his presidency, discuss the election, etc. You just toss out stuff like this as a "counter-argument."

Quote:

I called Trumptman to tell him the election's over. His guys lost. He just doesn't seem to get it.

The argument is that "I don't get it." No links, no facts, no points, nothing.

From the first link.....

Quote:

Here's the best part. Apparently, we can pay for it all by printing money. This has been a no-no ever since Fed Chairman Paul Volcker slew the inflation dragon almost three decades ago. But now it seems the risk is deflation, not inflation, so running up a tab and printing money to pay for it is a good thing. After all, Volcker is back, heading Obama's emergency economic council. If Volcker says it's O.K., that's good enough for me. So is there a downside at all, or is this medicine so delicious that you look forward to getting sick?

The link is from Time doesn't even mention Bush. It mentions the incredibly huge amount of spending waiting for the Obama pen and notes how we are going to pay for it. It notes, as is typical for Boomers every time they touch something, that it appears contrary to what is right. As is always the case with them though, it doesn't count for them. The kids won't be hurt by the divorce because it will be quality time instead of quantity time. Let's "save" an extra trillion for retirement via Social Security, spend it and leave promise notes in the bank, and then promise ourselves $50 trillion in benefits because that is what is good and right! The stock market can go up forever because of the internet baby! Housing never loses value, just refinance those granite counter-tops into the mortgage. Now we have, printing money doesn't cause inflation, it fights it!

In the end, we will have massive inflation. That is what printing money does and Bush being elected nor Obama being elected, nor anyone in particular being elected will change that fact. The only fact that we can hope to change is the belief Boomers have that they are above the rules. They have spent their entire lives thinking that because they have good social intentions, that the financial rules will change for them. They don't.

I say this as someone who had to wrestle personally with such a thing within my own generation. My wife and I are both college educated, professionals who earn a fair dime between my salary and investments and earn way too much when she choose to work as well. According to all the "old rules" our kids were set and would have every opportunity they cared to exploit.

Only living in So Cal, I could see there is a rule that is deeper there that is being ignored or people think certain things allow it to be ignored. The rule is demography is destiny. Those having the kids will make the rules about the future. I could scream that this is America, that it only ought to be about English. My kids shouldn't have to bend to people breaking the law, whatever. They will have enough opportunities to get by and ought to just with English, etc.

In reality though, demography is destiny and my belief is you ignore it at your peril. Education, money, being profoundly advanced or proficient in the one language that is dominant at the time, none of those matter when compared to that rule. Will it be the blind spot of my generation remains to be seen. My kids in the meantime are learning Spanish and come January, so am I (again).

We already know there are more Boomer households and people. How does that support you argument?

Trumptman your world would be very different without us. A lot of the things I'm sure you take for granted we started. Trying to hang us for the situation Bush brought us is just pathetic. Smoke amd mirrors. Blaming anyone but the one in charge. Can't you find a new M.O.?

Can't you find a real counter-argument. Bush won't have saddled us with a $50 trillion dollar obligation to your generation. The second link notes all the factors playing out and a good deal of them involve time frames where Bush wasn't even in office including governor.

Can you actually address the second article instead of talking about how "my world" would be different if I didn't have a delusion about Bush.

Can't you find a real counter-argument. Bush won't have saddled us with a $50 trillion dollar obligation to your generation. The second link notes all the factors playing out and a good deal of them involve time frames where Bush wasn't even in office including governor.

Can you actually address the second article instead of talking about how "my world" would be different if I didn't have a delusion about Bush.

Quote:

Can't you find a real counter-argument.

If you have to ask this question then it's useless to talk to you. It's clear you're just playing the denial game ( or one that get's people mad enough to say something that results in banning ) and haven't been paying attention to anything that has been said on these forums for what? Years now? This is Bush's mess. He was in charge. If not what the hell was he doing for 8 years. Sitting on his thumbs? I'd vote for that! No matter what you spew here Trumptman it won't have any effect on the way things are changing or the fortunes of that party that has continually shot itself in the foot for quite sometime now.

I wonder how much parents of your generation spent on wiping your collective ass and changing your generation's diapers ( both figuratively and not ) over the years. I mean really you wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for them.

Everyone else seems to be ignoring you because they realize this is just a game you're playing so fine you're on my ignore list also until you can post something real. I suggest everyone else shares my sentiment do the same.

Talk to the hand Trumptman your side lost and that's just the way it is and is going to be. Deal with it.
I'd be asking myself : " If we lost should I still be displaying the attitude that made us lose? "

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

If you have to ask this question then it's useless to talk to you. It's clear you're just playing the denial game ( or one that get's people mad enough to say something that results in banning ) and haven't been paying attention to anything that has been said on these forums for what? Years now? This is Bush's mess. He was in charge. If not what the hell was he doing for 8 years. Sitting on his thumbs? I'd vote for that! No matter what you spew here Trumptman it won't have any effect on the way things are changing or the fortunes of that party that has continually shot itself in the foot for quite sometime now.

I wonder how much parents of your generation spent on wiping your collective ass and changing your generation's diapers ( both figuratively and not ) over the years. I mean really you wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for them.

Everyone else seems to be ignoring you because they realize this is just a game you're playing so fine you're on my ignore list also until you can post something real. I suggest everyone else do the same.

Talk to the hand Trumptman your side lost and that's just the way it is and is going to be.
I'd be asking myself : " If we lost should I still be displaying the attittude that made us lose? "

Thanks for proving my point. You probably did just like I did. You went through the whole first page of the post and realized, not a damn one of you made a real point. You still haven't. $50 trillion in boomer entitlements don't have a thing to do with Bush. Reforming those entitlements in the future won't have a thing to do with Bush. The current lack of savings by boomers, the fact they own less of their house and are in worse health than previous generations has nothing to do with George Bush.

Yes, ignore the last 8 years. Having a cork up your ass that long will generate the same result.

Bullshit, and lots of it.

Yeah I ignored it by noting he added a trillion and a half to the national debt.

Of course some people declaring that it must be all about Bush appear to think that because he added a trillion and a half, in seven years, no one has the credibility to question a trillion in one year. No one should dare suggest that we can't spend $50 trillion because, hay cheezeburger guys, Bush ran up a trillion and a half, maybe more.

In fact none of the last twenty and next twenty years will matter because Bush was in power for 8 years. We dont have to address any of it. Bush, bush, bush, the cause of all problem and elimination of him is the solution to all problems.

What are you going to do Artman when Bush is gone and the problems still exist or grow worse? What are you going to do when Obama is running deficits in the first two years that are more than Bush did in 8 years, when they are printing money out the other side, when he and the Democratic Congress do nothing about entitlements and the $50 trillion dollar bill begins coming due? What will you do when we have to fix the problem instead of assigning blame?

What are you going to do Artman when Bush is gone and the problems still exist or grow worse? What are you going to do when Obama is running deficits in the first two years that are more than Bush did in 8 years, when they are printing money out the other side, when he and the Democratic Congress do nothing about entitlements and the $50 trillion dollar bill begins coming due? What will you do when we have to fix the problem instead of assigning blame?

You know I wonder what trumptman will do when things improve under Obama?

Oh yeah! Give the republicans credit somehow!

It will depend if it is real improvement or fake improvement. You can always improve something short term with a ton of printed money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

I'll blame Reagan.

Trickle, baby, trickle.

Cute and snarky, however I suspect that claiming Reagan didn't address the boomer spending all the equity out of their home, never starting or fully funding their 401ks, and just living like asses for decades after he was out of power won't be a very compelling argument.

Individuals, companies or cities with heavy debt and shrinking revenues instinctively know that they must reduce spending, tighten their belts, pay down debt and live within their means. But it is axiomatic in Keynesianism that national governments can create and sustain economic activity by injecting printed money into the financial system. In their view, absent the stimuli of the New Deal and World War II, the Depression would never have ended.

On a gut level, we have a hard time with this concept. There is a vague sense of smoke and mirrors, of something being magically created out of nothing. But economics, we are told, is complicated.

It would be irresponsible in the extreme for an individual to forestall a personal recession by taking out newer, bigger loans when the old loans can't be repaid. However, this is precisely what we are planning on a national level.

I believe these ideas hold sway largely because they promise happy, pain-free solutions. They are the economic equivalent of miracle weight-loss programs that require no dieting or exercise. The theories permit economists to claim mystic wisdom, governments to pretend that they have the power to dispel hardship with the whir of a printing press, and voters to believe that they can have recovery without sacrifice.

The steepness of the fiscal mountain he'll face beginning Jan. 20 was underscored by stunning new figures: an estimate that the federal budget deficit will reach $1.2 trillion this year, by far the biggest ever, even without the new stimulus spending.

The incoming president has walked this same tightrope each day this week advocating fiscal discipline and taxpayer largesse together at nearly every turn. With less than two weeks to go before taking the helm at the White House, he'll make the same pitch on Thursday, delivering a speech laying out why he wants Congress to quickly pass his still-evolving economic plan.

Last year's U.S. deficit set its own record, but that $455 billion will be dwarfed by this year's. The new estimate, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, represents more than 8 percent of the entire national economy.

We have an insolvency problem. Printing money can fix it and you can't get better terms on broke. Even Mr. HOPE and CHANGE Obama will not be able to reconcile spending record amounts while cutting taxes and also somehow saving money. Even messiahs have their limits.

Hasn't that been fiscal policy for the last 8 years? Spend more and cut taxes? Surely you or SDW can explain how that works!

I would imagine that those fiscal policies are what created the 1.2 trillion in debt that Obama inherits, in the first place.

But, as always, IOKIYAR. Obama, on the other hand, must face the wrath of legions of newly minted deficit hawks, once again fiercely convinced of the values of austerity. A conviction they will hold with unwavering steadfastness right up until the point that another Republican is safely in office.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

I would imagine that those fiscal policies are what created the 1.2 trillion in debt that Obama inherits, in the first place.

But, as always, IOKIYAR. Obama, on the other hand, must face the wrath of legions of newly minted deficit hawks, once again fiercely convinced of the values of austerity. A conviction they will hold with unwavering steadfastness right up until the point that another Republican is safely in office.

Yeah, Bush our first trillion dollar deficit POTUS.

Way to go Dubya!

Don't let the deficit door hit you on the way out.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Hasn't that been fiscal policy for the last 8 years? Spend more and cut taxes? Surely you or SDW can explain how that works!

They didn't follow it quite right so I guess that justifies whatever whenever. I heard the Republican police were a little gruff when cuffing a suspect so the Democratic police are fully justified in just blowing the guy away with a gunshot between the eyes. A trillion dollar deficit over six years fully justifies a trillion dollars every year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

I would imagine that those fiscal policies are what created the 1.2 trillion in debt that Obama inherits, in the first place.

But, as always, IOKIYAR. Obama, on the other hand, must face the wrath of legions of newly minted deficit hawks, once again fiercely convinced of the values of austerity. A conviction they will hold with unwavering steadfastness right up until the point that another Republican is safely in office.

We have a Democratic house and 2009's spending will have been put in place already by Bush AND THE DEMOCRATS (never forget that part) Obama could still demand legislative action one way or another. He appears just fine with the status quo of trillion dollar deficits and instead has said get used to them and expect more of the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by franksargent

Yeah, Bush our first trillion dollar deficit POTUS.

Way to go Dubya!

Don't let the deficit door hit you on the way out.

Well when the Republicans are remaking their brand, so to speak, they will be able to say that Bush is gone, they only ran $200 billion dollar deficits and that they can return to that and try to aim for truly being fiscally conservative and getting back to balance.

The reality though is that as a generational thing, the boomers are going to screw us by running the printing press. The surprise for me is that they are more desperate and getting their faster than even I thought.

The Wall Street Journal has managed to perfectly capture and question the reasoning out there that embodies what I will call "The Jimmac Principle." It notes what I had mentioned but does a better job. (It's almost like they are professionals or something.)

Quote:

The Congressional Budget Office released its latest budget forecast yesterday, and we now really do have red ink as far as the eye can see. Thanks to a 6.6% decline in revenues due to recession, a spending increase of some $500 billion or 19%, and assorted federal bailouts, the U.S. deficit for fiscal 2009 (ending September 30) will nearly triple to $1.19 trillion. That's 8.3% of GDP, which CBO says "will most likely shatter the previous post-World War II record high of 6.0 percent posted in 1983." It certainly blows away any deficit this decade, not to mention the Reagan years when smaller deficits were the media cause celebre.

But there's more. None of that includes the new fiscal "stimulus" that President-elect Obama has promised to introduce upon taking office in two weeks. The details aren't known, but Mr. Obama and Democrats have been talking about at least $800 billion, and probably $1 trillion, in new spending or various tax credits and reductions over two years. Toss that in and add more expected bailout cash, and if the economy stays slow the deficit could reach $1.8 trillion, or a gargantuan 12.5% of GDP. That 2006 Democratic vow to pass "pay as you go" budgets seems like a lifetime ago, which in political terms it was.

As it notes, the deficit is that high and then Obama and the Dems will want to add stimulus on top of the already huge deficit. They can't blame it on Bush when they have a choice of trying to lower it but instead choose to add to it by another $800b-$1t this year.

Like I also mentioned, PAYGO was what they used to win and criticize and it is long gone.

Running on budget reform and against corruption is great for getting elected. However when what you really bring to office is record deficits, sex and pay to play scandals galore, the tables can turn quickly. Pointing that out isn't delusional but smart.

Spitzer, Mahoney, Blago, Rangel, Richardson and more showing up and we can say they don't matter, but something will cause a tipping point. The war, corruption and spending didn't matter for Repubilcans, until it did. The difference there was it took several years whereas these guys are blowing the doors off within two years.

Worse still you can see the organizations that help support them are hollowing out and are broke as well. Bailoutonomics allows us to question advertising, political contributions and perk for anyone taking that cash. UAW anyone, all those banks, hedge funds, and groups grabbing that government cash, it is open season on questioning what they do and why they do it.

[As it notes, the deficit is that high and then Obama and the Dems will want to add stimulus on top of the already huge deficit. They can't blame it on Bush when they have a choice of trying to lower it but instead choose to add to it by another $800b-$1t this year.

So the republicans wrecked everything, and ran up huge budget defects when things were going well, and now that Obama has to clean up the mess created by Bush you are blaming Obama?

I think you are insane. 90% of this mess was due to the SEC letting investment banks go to 40-1, and due to sub-prime loan packaging. You can blame maybe 10% of this mess on the Democrats due to their meddling in FRE/FNM/FHA.

So the republicans wrecked everything, and ran up huge budget defects when things were going well, and now that Obama has to clean up the mess created by Bush you are blaming Obama?

I think you are insane. 90% of this mess was due to the SEC letting investment banks go to 40-1, and due to sub-prime loan packaging. You can blame maybe 10% of this mess on the Democrats due to their meddling in FRE/FNM/FHA.

I don't know about insane, which you might want to edit out, but the rest is right.

So the republicans wrecked everything, and ran up huge budget defects when things were going well, and now that Obama has to clean up the mess created by Bush you are blaming Obama?

I think you are insane. 90% of this mess was due to the SEC letting investment banks go to 40-1, and due to sub-prime loan packaging. You can blame maybe 10% of this mess on the Democrats due to their meddling in FRE/FNM/FHA.

I would assign a lot more than that. The real problem with RINO's and one of the reason the party shouldn't tolerate them anymore is they keep trying to "fix" Democrat creations and then get the blame when you can't make a shit sandwich taste good. Those investment banks blew up due to their investment in FRE/FNM/FHA. Sure they were over-leveraged, but they were invested in what was considers and rates safe as bonds. That would be like complaining tomorrow that someone went belly up for investing in government saving bonds.

I would assign a lot more than that. The real problem with RINO's and one of the reason the party shouldn't tolerate them anymore is they keep trying to "fix" Democrat creations and then get the blame when you can't make a shit sandwich taste good. Those investment banks blew up due to their investment in FRE/FNM/FHA. Sure they were over-leveraged, but they were invested in what was considers and rates safe as bonds. That would be like complaining tomorrow that someone went belly up for investing in government saving bonds.

Quote:

Democrat creations

Which are those? The republicans were in control for a long time. Longer than any Democratic control. What happened? Bad management?

I'd buy that for a dollar!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

They have been in control longer in either the Whitehouse or congress or both since the early 80's.

Roughly 25 years. What happened? How come things are so shitty if they're so good?

And no! I think you should explain it for us again ( an over used right wing tactic here ).

You can look up for yourself how many of those years since 1980 the Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses. It is much smaller than you might imagine. For example in the last eight years, the Republicans controlled the White House for 8 years, the House for 6 and the Senate for 4 years.

More and more people out there are waking up to the Boomer reality. Of course they being paid to write and think about such things, they came up with a better title. Michelle Malkin is being credited with calling the Stimulus the "The Generational Theft Act of 2009." It doesn't really matter what boomer do, they are done. the only question left is how much they can steal from or harm future generations.

Michelle Malkin is being credited with calling the Stimulus the "The Generational Theft Act of 2009." It doesn't really matter what boomer do, they are done. the only question left is how much they can steal from or harm future generations.

I'm glad this idea is gaining ground.

I'm also glad that everyone on the planet Earth realizes that Michelle Malkin is an idiotic cunt.

Yeah I notice that's coming up more and more now in government because of all the noise the republicans have been making about the stimulus package. Funny but not unusual how they shot themselves in the foot again.

A friend and I were talking this morning on the phone and he said it's like they want to forget who was president for 8 years. Like the last president was Clinton!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

More and more people out there are waking up to the Boomer reality. Of course they being paid to write and think about such things, they came up with a better title. Michelle Malkin is being credited with calling the Stimulus the "The Generational Theft Act of 2009." It doesn't really matter what boomer do, they are done. the only question left is how much they can steal from or harm future generations.

I'm glad this idea is gaining ground.

What they're waking up to trumpy is what your favorite party was doing to us in the last 8 years!

In any case, older baby boomers are more likely to have retirement accounts than other cohorts (swing, jones (young boomer), x and y) and are more likely to self report that they are savers although oddly more gen x, y and swing chorts reported they spent less than their total income. Take self reporting with a large grain of salt.

"The ANOVA results revealed that all of the cohorts differed significantly on the total amount in their retirement accounts. Households in the Swing cohort had the largest amount in retirement savings, but it was only $14,000 more, on average, than the amount of the Older Boomers retirement savings.Households in the Older Boomer cohort had twice as much in their retirement accounts, on average, as the Younger Boomers. Older Boomers had attained the highest level of education. Household income was highest for the Older Boomers and lowest for the Generation X and Y cohort. The amount of financial assets was highest for the Swing cohort and lowest for the Generation X and Y cohort. Nonfinancial assets were also highest for the Swing cohort and lowest for the Generation X and Y cohort.

...

The Younger Boomers and Generation X and Y had smaller amounts saved for retirement than the Older Boomers, but the Swing cohort had more saved than the Older Boomers. Hence, the life-cycle hypothesis that household savings tends to increase with age was supported."

Yeah I notice that's coming up more and more now in government because of all the noise the republicans have been making about the stimulus package. Funny but not unusual how they shot themselves in the foot again.

A friend and I were talking this morning on the phone and he said it's like they want to forget who was president for 8 years. Like the last president was Clinton!

Congress controls the spending. The story there is much clearer. We just watched the Congress go back and add anoher $410 billion to this fiscal year after passing a continuing resolution to get past Bush. You are welcome to explain how Bush controlled that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinea

I wouldn't say that WWII was pain free.

In any case, older baby boomers are more likely to have retirement accounts than other cohorts (swing, jones (young boomer), x and y) and are more likely to self report that they are savers although oddly more gen x, y and swing chorts reported they spent less than their total income. Take self reporting with a large grain of salt.

"The ANOVA results revealed that all of the cohorts differed significantly on the total amount in their retirement accounts. Households in the Swing cohort had the largest amount in retirement savings, but it was only $14,000 more, on average, than the amount of the Older Boomers retirement savings.Households in the Older Boomer cohort had twice as much in their retirement accounts, on average, as the Younger Boomers. Older Boomers had attained the highest level of education. Household income was highest for the Older Boomers and lowest for the Generation X and Y cohort. The amount of financial assets was highest for the Swing cohort and lowest for the Generation X and Y cohort. Nonfinancial assets were also highest for the Swing cohort and lowest for the Generation X and Y cohort.

...

The Younger Boomers and Generation X and Y had smaller amounts saved for retirement than the Older Boomers, but the Swing cohort had more saved than the Older Boomers. Hence, the life-cycle hypothesis that household savings tends to increase with age was supported."

Boomers may or may not be prepared but they aren't out of step with either the previous swing cohort or the following gen x and y cohorts in terms of their preparations.

Obviously, for most folks, they try to build up more retirement savings as they get closer to retirement age.

Boomers are not at all prepared. It seems like the boomer remorse is growing and starting to show up in more and more places.

We are staring at unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security in the tens of trillions of dollars. Where's that money going to come from? We have to either raise taxes or cut benefits. There are no other options.

The baby boomers are starting to retire and will consume an ever larger share of these entitlement programs. They will also age in sufficient numbers to drive the political agenda for the foreseeable future. Think they're going to want less Social Security and less Medicare? Think again.

The generation coming along behind them that will be asked to pay for all this can't. There are not enough good jobs left in this country to pay those kinds of bills.

At the end of the day, we are going to have to settle for less. Less money, smaller houses, smaller cars and smaller dreams.

This is not your father's country anymore. And we had better all start getting used to it.

They won't get used to it. They have and will run it into the ground with their dishonesty and attempts to act as they have their entire lives. I mean how do you fix broke by going trillions more into debt? How do you run on hope, change and paygo and then claim a depression to institute trillions in payoffs to political allies.

The breadth and depth of the lies and spending is what is historic now. It is amazing.